Supervised Visitation - How Judicial Councils decriminalize crime.
Supervised Visitation: The biggest con.
Once again, we've received reports featuring Patti Chavez-Fallon, of catering to men who abuse children. For years Patti ran the Family Court Services in San Diego and was besties with Susan Griffin. For years Griffin faked being a therapist and was a family court favorite. (Griffin changed the name of her firm to "Hannah's House.") This time however, we've acted on the reports we've received about Chavez-Fallon. Details as will be made available.
What is not in various directories for supervised visitation; is how supervised visitation can cause harm to children. Or how poor trained they are. See transcript of Elizabeth Griffin-Hall's call regarding Josh Powell. An examination of the language used in judicial council forms requesting supervised visitation reveals crimes against children are being adjudicated in family, not criminal court. Every directory, every supervised visitation provider offering these dubious services omits this key fact.
Update: 12-17-12: While San Diego excels in Supervised Visitation horror stories, the new crowd, including Coral Kingwell of ChildAccessMonitors.org (and Club Veg San Diego!) is completely oblivious to San Diego's long, problematic history with Supervised Visitation. Including the once close ties between Neil Ribner and Susan Griffin. Ignorance in this area means Kingwell self-identifies as one of a "good guys" but more importantly, does not want to hear anything beyond her opinion.
Just what one wants in someone who is supposed to be a "neutral."
Unfortunately, the problem demonstrated by Kingwell who we later learned, is prone to spout rubbish and bias in the same email, is the same as the rest those who purport to want to change Supervised Visitation.
When Kingwell was informed she was going up as a "Do Not Hire" list, she promptly threatened us with legal action. Interestingly, although Kingwell initially contacted us with a request to use the Josh Powell section of this site, and we recommended the AOC2 section, the tone of her follow up email seemed one of pompous superiority, (minus facts). She also didn't know what she was talking about. But that's exactly the kind of supervised monitor we recommend avoiding should one be interested in finding a "neutral" supervised visitation monitor.
The good news is just as we suspected. Coral Kingwell demonstrated exactly why the so-called "new" is only a rehash of the old.
04-01-12: We are compiling information on various supervised visitation monitors, and will be posting a "Do Not Recommend" list within the next two weeks. Efforts will be made to encourage the County to begin policing this out-of-control, employment field.
Please note in the Eight reasons listed which purport to demonstrate a need for supervised visitation; the first Four involve actual Crimes committed against children.
Crimes which should Not be adjudicated anywhere but a criminal court, but which are routinely heard in Family Court, coupled with reports by visitation monitors who have no oversight or real training. These reports are generally rubber-stamped by family court judges and commissioners.
Also of note in the California Judicial Council form for Supervised Visitation; is:
The form states "evidence" has been entered.
This is incorrect. "Evidence" not as it relates to the Evidence Code, but a statement or declaration by the other side under penalty of perjury.
Unfortunately perjury is never prosecuted...and other studies note there have been no studies done on the effectiveness of Supervised visitation (or those monitoring) although the courts are say they are imporant in determining custody, which is itself, problematic as they operate without oversight.
Thus not only does "Evidence" not comport to any Evidence Code, Family Court is also known as "the Perjury Palace." Thus while there is no motivation to tell the truth; there is plenty of financial and psychological motivation, not to.
Interestingly, the public is only just now discovering the single most intrusive form of government is a family court (or "social services" judge.)
Practice Hint:: Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department. Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest. The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.
Ironically and in a true, "dog bites man" story, Family Court Judge William Adams, has been ordered to visit with his youngest daughter, only while being "Supervised."
How an Oversight-free environment puts all children, including from "intact" families, at risk.
(After the above piece aired Parson's changed his plea to "Guilty" is two years into a six year sentence.)
While the judicial council created the cottage industry known as "Supervised Visitation" the council did not and and seemingly, will not create any oversight or accountability in the field what-so-ever.
Yes, our tax dollars are being awarded to firms with Zero oversight. Anyone completing one 40 hour domestic violence course, who hasn't had a restraining order against them in over ten years, and who has a clean driving record qualifies as good to go as a supervised visitation monitor.
Directories offering supervised visitation services do not mention they operate entirely free of oversight, nor is it mentioned the California Judicial Council has no plans to remedy this decades old problem of the courts putting children at risk.
Does your state mirror California?
Bud Parson is why Russsell decided to work in public relations for family court litigants. (See PersonalPublicRelations)
Here's how it works, and the news is - all bad.
Using San Diego as an example, as the same problem applies throughout the country, the San Diego Supervised visitation monitors at the top of our "Do Not Recommend" list. This includes
Patti-Chavez Fallon, and Susan Griffin, the fake therapist who after beginning "Real Solutions" now operates "Hannah's House" and features Eric Moleter on her Board of Directors. Patti Chavez-Fallon also served on Griffin's Board. Both women seem dangerous to children.
Susan was made to return grants to the County of San Diego and was twice featured for a lack of education, first in 2002 by San Dieo Magazine...which prompted Griffin to do a PR name change then in 2006, by the North County Times.
That Judges Rhonda Trapp and other San Diego judges continue to use both these women to help determine custody issues is Exhibit A of the judicial lack of regard for children who are preyed on in family court.
So our thought is this.
Hannah ran away.
Content copyright . Family Law Courts. All rights reserved.